Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Please present your evidence that there will be another season of 24!

You can't! They have already announced that this season will be the LAST season of 24.

Mark

I have taken off my tinfoil hat, and I have determined that the entire staff of 24 is SO taken with the tale of woe depicted on this thread, and others, supra, infra, etc...here on MacRumors, that they are pulling Mr. Sutherland out of rehab for just one more exercise in over the top FAUX NEWS inspired fiction. Now, the tinfoil must go back on my dome. I have said too much. Far too much.
 
I have taken off my tinfoil hat, and I have determined that the entire staff of 24 is SO taken with the tale of woe depicted on this thread, and others, supra, infra, etc...here on MacRumors, that they are pulling Mr. Sutherland out of rehab for just one more exercise in over the top FAUX NEWS inspired fiction. Now, the tinfoil must go back on my dome. I have said too much. Far too much.

Actually, I believe what will happen is thus: Jack is about to push Locke off the cliff but before he has a chance to, Jack Bauer jumps down in full camo gear and in one carefully executed maneuver, captures Jack.

Meanwhile, back at CTU...
 
I'll ask you to forgive me for I don't quite grasp the affirmative action point (especially pertaining to this matter). Can you elaborate on it slightly?

While I recognize the difference you aptly point to, namely the difference between inattention or negligence and one that occurs from intentional action, I am making a further distinction between straightforward intentional action, and (auxiliary) intentional action that occurs as a direct result of negligence or inattention. The latter form of intentional action should not be taken as equivalent to the former, both legally, and philosophically. ;)

Apple accidentally lost the phone. The finder intenionally misappropriated it. Simple. The fact that "but for" apple's arguable negligence the thief would have nothing to steal does not render them responsible any more than a woman walking alone at night inattentively is responsible for the intentional actions of her attacker.

The law recognizes this. If I negligently crash into your car, and a doctor intenionally kills you while you are getting your neck checked, I am not responsible. It's the difference between causation and proximate causation, and it's a principle well embedded in the law. Intentional actions (selling the phone. Not giving it to the police when required by statute to do so) supersede neligent actions (dropping, forgetting, or not keeping an eye on the phone).
 
The press doesn't have freedom from being convicted of felonies, only diplomats do. ;) Cancelling the order was wise with 4G ipads coming in the next couple years.
 
Like I said earlier in this post...

I wonder how many Gawker employees are now tasked with the job of setting up fake user names and posting on sites like this... Ya know, trying to get everyone to drink the Gizmodo Kool-Aid.

...It was lost....
...They tried to return it...
...I'ts Journalism...


LOL :rolleyes:
 
Apple accidentally lost the phone. The finder intenionally misappropriated it. Simple. The fact that "but for" apple's arguable negligence the thief would have nothing to steal does not render them responsible any more than If I negligently crash into your car, and a doctor intenionally kills you while you are getting your neck checked, I am not responsible. The law recognizes this. It's the difference between causation and proximate causation, and it's a principle well embedded in the law. Intentional actions (selling the phone. Not giving it to the police when required by statute to do so) supersede neligent actions (dropping, forgetting, or not keeping an eye on the phone).

This post is well said. I've amended your comments to remove what I took to be a bad analogy (the woman walking inattentively since so far as I know there is no plausible moral precept stating one should walk only with attention, but if you can construct one, the analogy might be resurrected). Thus, so far as I can tell, it's not the same as with matters pertaining to property and waste that we are dealing with here, since it is quite obvious that unless one can protect and make use of one's property, one arguably has no warrant to it (isn't this part of the only reasonable justification for the entire appropriation of America?).

That being said, while I agree we need to differentiate between types of causation, and their respective degrees of value, it seems to me the analogy only works if the doctor intentionally killed me only because you negligently crashed your car into mine. And if that is the situation we are working with, then you do have some responsibility in my death. If the doctor would have killed me regardless of your crashing into me, during my next checkup, then though you are excused of any culpability, your analogy breaks down.

Still, without the imperfect analogies I think the case is sufficiently well stated to convince me and so I concede the point. Well argued sir.
 
Have any of you ever been a victim of a crime? You have to advocate for yourself and press the police to investigate. In this case, Apple's staure probably sped up the process, but its still what we all have to do. Make phone calls, find out what detective has the case. Keep calling until they finish the investigation. Apple isn't doing anything unusual for a crime victim(That is if the phone was stolen or changed hands illegally).
 
Congressional law professor Jonathan Turley was a guest on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman this evening. I think Turley presented a reasonable and fair analysis of the criminal aspects of this situation, including whether the "finder" might be guilty of theft. For anyone genuinely interested in this case, the video interview is worth watching:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#36814154

Mark
 
Steve Jobs and the other higher ups at Apple must be laughing their asses off. Even if it wasn't an intentional leak, the publicity they drummed up from this "news" story was priceless. I'm puzzled by the people who thinks this somehow harmed Apple in anyway. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know they were releasing a new iPhone in June and how does the "leaked" photos affect someone's decision to not buy an iPhone? Craziness. All this debate about whether it was stolen or not is completely pointless. I'm sure Apple doesn't really give a rat's ass. They just have to act like they do. It has nothing to do with the real issue which is publicity. But I guess that's the whole point - for people not to notice.

Oh, and on top of that, it was "stolen" the day before blowout earnings? Haha. Sure, it was just a coincidence. Of course it was. ;)
 
Sorry how do you properly sheep? Just wondering? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.....

I would like everyone to know that I have LOVED Apple products, but with this stunt? No more. Corporate security is VERY important....always will be. Violating the constitutional rights is going too far. This is NOT corporate spying! A trusted employee got drunk and ****ed up. A piece of equipment made it out sooner than Apple would like.

How do you know he was drunk? The only account we have is from the thief
Whose constitutional rights were violated? You are going to say Chen and within 48 hours you will be shown to be wrong.
How do you know what else Chen was planning to do with the item? What about the details he held back from the story?
If you do not love apple products anymore because they chose to inform the police about a crime perpetrated against them, you are the one with the problem.

First off, ANYTHING coming from Keith Olberman is suspect! Next....California Law is different. Knowingly receiving lost or stolen property, WITHOUT the intent of returning it is a crime. Taking it apart, taking pictures or video taping is NOT, as long as the property is returned. Keeping any such property without the INTENT of returning it IS a crime. Check the sub sections of the 487PC statute

Your point has been effectively refuted by 2 or 3 members of the California bar on this forum (On at least 10 different occasions). To put it simply, you are wrong, California law does in fact say what your rights and duties are with found property and those rights do not include disassembling the item or doing anything at all not directly related to returning it. Do your own research...
 
First off, ANYTHING coming from Keith Olberman is suspect! Next....California Law is different. Knowingly receiving lost or stolen property, WITHOUT the intent of returning it is a crime. Taking it apart, taking pictures or video taping is NOT, as long as the property is returned. Keeping any such property without the INTENT of returning it IS a crime. Check the sub sections of the 487PC statute

Maybe not a crime, but if someone else - like RIM, HTC, Nokia etc. - would have got the phone and made fotos of it it would have been industrie espionage. I cannot imagine that Apple has no legal hold against Giz/C. for making the photos public of their technology. Otherwise any firm could ask them to grab an iPhone and claim it's just for the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press ok, but everywhere there are limits.
 
Your saying.... the secret development of an American product, stolen and displayed in it's entirety. Which foreign competitors now have the ability to take advantage of, in turn, enabling them to modify their products. Unfortunately with a two month window, hold no value to you?

Basically stating, that it's OK to take a potentially game changing device and spread it across the airwaves for all to see, because of freedom of speech, when it was acquired by illegal means?

Your saying it's OK to steal trade secrets for the better good of what? The advertising click threw ratio on a blog site? :eek:

Thank you. I've been arguing this for days:

§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.
 
How do you know he was drunk? The only account we have is from the thief
Whose constitutional rights were violated? You are going to say Chen and within 48 hours you will be shown to be wrong.
How do you know what else Chen was planning to do with the item? What about the details he held back from the story?
If you do not love apple products anymore because they chose to inform the police about a crime perpetrated against them, you are the one with the problem.



Your point has been effectively refuted by 2 or 3 members of the California bar on this forum (On at least 10 different occasions). To put it simply, you are wrong, California law does in fact say what your rights and duties are with found property and those rights do not include disassembling the item or doing anything at all not directly related to returning it. Do your own research...

Those statutes also do NOT include anything that PROHIBITS, dissasembling or any thing to that nature. Show me the case law! I would love to argue it! So keep listening to the 2 or 3 members of the Cali BAR on this forum. (On at least 10 different occasions). I would love to argue the point of law.
 
I am beginning to wonder if you are truly retarded. No kidding! Trade secrets have NOTHING to do with this!!!!!!!!!!! If a trade secret is let out, by accident? DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't ransack a house of a journalist because you want it kept secret. Can I kick in your door and take all of your computer equipment? I think your opinion would be changed if it happened to you

I'm sorry you feel that way LOL. BTW your the one that publicly cancelled your order for the new 64G ipad).

This has a black mark on the idiot blogger who bought stolen merchandise.... Your the one pointing fingers at Apple with claims of inhumane behavior (yet they haven't made a single public statement yet, only Gizmodo has).

Don't steal Sh@#!t and your house wont get ransacked... Hmmm seems like Life101 to me.

Even a moron could figure that one out Columbo. :D
 
Sorry...

I am beginning to wonder if you are truly retarded. No kidding! Trade secrets have NOTHING to do with this!!!!!!!!!!! If a trade secret is let out, by accident? DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't ransack a house of a journalist because you want it kept secret. Can I kick in your door and take all of your computer equipment? I think your opinion would be changed if it happened to you

Here is the statute. BTW, it's Federal:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832----000-.html

I also quoted its contents in an above comment.

You are truly irrational. Go back to lurking.
 
Those statutes also do NOT include anything that PROHIBITS, dissasembling or any thing to that nature. Show me the case law! I would love to argue it!

As I indicated it has been argued to death by actual attorneys, feel free to look it up yourself. You clearly have little or no knowledge of the law involved. The moment he picked up the phone he took on certain legal responsibilities.

You said case law, just like you saw it on TV, that was cute.

Just realized you are likely just the next incarnation of Chen after his pastparticiple id was outed. Properly handled, good luck.
 
The thing is, everyone who is taking Gizmodo's "side" is doing so because they believe the story that Powell left the iPhone behind in a bar.

Who's to say the iPhone wasn't stolen? People are automatically taking Gizmodo's version of events, but just because Apple haven't released a statement or made Powell's version of events public, doesn't mean they're the bad ones by playing hard ball with Gizmodo.

People are all too eager to believe Gizmodo, who could be using the, "We bought it from a guy who found it" story when for all they know they themselves could have been spun a story by the bloke selling it.
 
The amateur law professors are still at it and more than one person has stooped to calling Chen ugly as if that is a crime. If it is I bet there are a lot of felons posting.

I see the requisite labeling of opposing views as trolls is going strong too...keep it up boys!

More people have been eager to hang Chen than have been eager to belive Gizmodo out of hand so I don't know what you are going on about Weegie.
 
So the apple employee messed up then goes running to the police to cover his @rse and now this guy's home is raided and he'll probably get a conviction.


Its. Only. A. Bloody. Phone.
:mad:
 
The thing is, everyone who is taking Gizmodo's "side" is doing so because they believe the story that Powell left the iPhone behind in a bar.

Who's to say the iPhone wasn't stolen? People are automatically taking Gizmodo's version of events, but just because Apple haven't released a statement or made Powell's version of events public, doesn't mean they're the bad ones by playing hard ball with Gizmodo.

People are all too eager to believe Gizmodo, who could be using the, "We bought it from a guy who found it" story when for all they know they themselves could have been spun a story by the bloke selling it.


We had this already. It doesn't matter if it was lost or stolen. The "finder" cannot sell it like that even if he contacted Apple. He had to get it to the bar keeper or police. Otherwise it's not "legal" anyway. Gizmodo had also no right to buy it, bc. they must have known that too.
 
So the apple employee messed up then goes running to the police to cover his @rse and now this guy's home is raided and he'll probably get a conviction.


Its. Only. A. Bloody. Phone.
:mad:

The only account we have seen of what happened in the bar is a person we know to be a thief. Why do you automatically believe him?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.